Standards of liver cirrhosis care in Central Australia

Table 3 Unadjusted and adjusted binary logistic models of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance versus Aboriginal status

Risk factor	Surveillance participation		Comparison	Odds ratio (95%CI)	P value	Odds ratio (95%CI)	P value
	Yes	No		Univariate		Multivariable
Aboriginal status-Yes	18	95	Yes vs No	0.31 (0.13, 0.77)	0.011	0.29 (0.10, 0.87)	0.028
Age-mean ± SD	51.7 (10.9)	49.4 (10.8)		1.02 (0.98, 1.06)	0.308	1.00 (0.95, 1.04)	0.866
Gender–Male	18	64	Female vs Male	0.80 (0.35, 1.84)	0.398	1.10 (0.45, 2.71)	0.838
Child-Pugh score					0.930		0.950
A	18	65	A vs B	1.18 (0.51, 2.74)	0.694	0.97 (0.40, 2.34)	0.942
B	11	47
Residence					0.026
Alice Springs	14	27	AS vs ASC	11.41 (1.39, 93.66)	0.023
Alice Springs camps	1	22	AS vs R	2.37 (1.00, 5.64)	0.05
Rural	14	64	AST vs R	0.21 (0.03, 1.67)	0.14
See specialist liver clinic–Yes	26	52	Yes vs No	10.17 (2.91, 35.52)	< 0.001

AS: Alice springs; ASC: Alice springs camps; AST: Aspartate aminotransferase.